Talk:Georgia Guidestones/Archive 2

time capsule

was it digged out and opened? 2A02:2F07:6215:F800:1C78:3CDA:F0EC:A47A (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

From the sources, it looks like it was never confirmed a time capsule was actually buried. Fbifriday (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

« Dug ». « Digged » is obsolete and sooo last century. 142.113.73.240 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Moira Maclean

The 2004 Free Inquiry article states that the time capsule inscription was added by a later historical society, and that it was not part of the original monument.Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There was no time capsule. I don't know how to add citations in an article, but here it is for those who know how to do it. https://www.elberton.com/local-regional/alleged-time-capsule-disproved 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Propose deletion of link to "The Georgia Guidestones: America's Most Mysterious Monument" in further reading section

I was reading the above mentioned work Georgia Guidestones: America's Most Mysterious Monument by Raymond Wiley and don't think it's a reliable source. For example it claims that the stones were "750 miles above sea level" which would put them a few times farther out in space than the International Space Station. And on the same page it seems to be taking seriously the claims the stones were somehow magical. --Costco nostra (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That is an obvious error that should have been caught in proofreading. I've been trying to find out more about this book and I'm not really thrilled about what I see. The author Raymond Wiley is a podcaster who self-identifies as an historian, but I can't find any sort of credentials to back up that sort of claim. The other author KT Prime is a public defender. Despite Wiley calling himself "arguably the foremost expert on the Georgia Guidestones" neither one of the authors are experts or even students in any field related to this article's subject, and there are no reviews of the book that I can find. I don't think we should be including a book that slipped through the cracks of reviewers, written by amateur authors. In the words of the one and only B&N Review: "There is nothing in the book that could not be had from an afternoon on the internet, or twenty minutes on Wikipedia, which it seems is all the research the authors did." I don't think this book needs to be listed here. That is exists is not sufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Concurrence With referring readers to outside sources for external reading, we have to consider whether or not we are directing them to valid information. In this case, any book that is written about the monument in any way other than informative, or a neutral tone covering the controversies, only would point people to further conspiracy reading, or patently false information. I agree to not include the book as further reading, or a reference. Fbifriday (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead Plural form

In the lead, the Guidestones are referred to both in singular and plural form (Georgia Guidestones was/guidestones were). Which form is appropriate? Fbifriday (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thats a very good question and it seems like there's no clear answer for what is "correct" since the reliable sources in the article and online all differ on how they refer to the Guidestones. It does seem like the sources in the article itself tend to use the plural more usually than the singular. I can see arguments for a singular use (it's a singular monument that happens to be made up of many stones) and for plural use (its literally in the name that each stone is a separate entity). I don't personally really mind either way, as long as the article itself is consistent about how it's referred. - Aoidh (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You could actually even have it both ways, in all reality. The proper "Georgia Guidestones" is singular, as a monument, but the common noun "guidestones" could refer to the individual stones themselves. That is the way it is in the lead right now, but it looks...off, when you consider the difference. Fbifriday (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That works too, actually, no complaints here. While I'm looking, there's also inconsistency on whether just using the word "guidestones" should be capitalized or not. - Aoidh (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aoidh: I'm sorry, but that's not right. They were a collection of guidestones, so we should use plural. Should we call an RFC? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You can find plenty of reliable sources that use the singular.[1][2][3][4] Stonehenge is similarly a collection of stones, yet is still referred to in the singular, so that argument in itself is not convincing. - Aoidh (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I will say, there is a major difference between Stonehenge and the Georgia Guidestones, and that is that Stonehenge is a singular noun, Guidestones is not. With that said, per our discussion earlier, I agree with keeping it singular when referring to the monument as whole. Fbifriday (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Reuters in particular makes a point to note that it is a singular monument, even if its made up of comprising slabs. The Elbert Chamber of Commerce also refers to it in the singular, which is the closest thing to an "official website" for the monument that I can find. - Aoidh (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Singular monument, made up of several guidestones. Ergo, refer to the entire monument as a singular thing. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but reading "The Georgia Guidestones was" makes me wanna IAR and say that it looks to darn weird like that for the page, even if it IS technically correct. Fbifriday (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Purpose

When it was unveiled the spokespersons for the monument explained the purpose quite extensively. It was covered by both AP and UPI. The monument is not really much of a mystery, it's just a lot of baseless conspiracy mongering. A bit too much weight is given to the conspiracy theories, and not as much on the earliest reporting. Wikipedia should be a place where we inform people and this article as is doesn't help much. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything about any spokespeople for the monument. Please do point us to the news articles that covered it, as those sound like great sources. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Doing a little bit of research of my own trying to find a source that would back up the claim that a spokesman explained the monument, but every source I can find that discusses the meaning explicitly says that the monument's true purpose was never officially revealed. I would really like to see anything that can dispel the rumors, if you have the sources, please add the content to the article. Fbifriday (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"Robert Christian" wrote a book titled "Common Sense Renewed" where he explained his reasoning in detail. It was a very small printing, but I found it as a pdf online. After listening to a few different perspectives, I agree that there is little doubt that Christian is Herbert Kersten (1920-2005). While I strenuously disagree with the tactics, philosophy, and politics of the video that initially made that finding (as well as their characterization of Kersten), others have put together more connections and came to the same conclusion as to Christian's identity but not his character. Auctoris (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The earliest reporting makes it clear there was no attempt at being mysterious. Fendley and Martin acted as spokespersons for the project relaying Christian's intent, and congressman Doug Barnard explained the purpose of the monument at its unveiling. At the time it was not noted as being controversial or as anything other than a local curiosity. The narrative that developed over the years was that this was a mysterious structure with some conspiracy theories surrounding it and a lot of low quality web journalism such as Smithsonian magazine repeats that. We should use the highest quality sources, such as the early in depth print reporting as the basis for the article. Also, curious if something like Skeptic Magazine had covered this? That could be a useful source.

As to the identity of Christian, the only thing in reliable sources is Martin noted he wasn't a local based on the accent. Nothing else has been reported and that's what should be reflected in the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems like you are again claiming that high quality sources exist, but you are still not showing them to us. Where are they? -- Fyrael (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It was covered by both AP and UPI. This reference mentions that the AP contributed to the report. This reference mentions that UPI contributed to the report. I assume that these are the two sources being mentioned. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, and wow. I see now that those are cited in the article, but I hadn't read them. I entirely agree with Harizotoh. Up until now my understanding based on the article was that very little was known about the intended purpose and we had only conjecture to go off of, but apparently that's completely untrue. The actual purpose stated at its opening should be prominent at the beginning of the Interpretations section, only then to be followed by the silly conspiracy theories. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've been adding old newspaper articles clipped from newspapers.com since they're the best sources. They are the closet to the event, and include people who were actually at the opening ceremonies. Unfortunately the newspaper accounts merely summarize congressman Doug Barnard Jr.'s opening remarks rather than give direct quotations otherwise I'd have added them directly. It's clear that the creators never intended it to be a mystery for the purpose of the structure. The phenomenon is called "mystery mongering" where something has a straight forward explanation, yet fluff media keeps hyping up "the mystery". And it's also disappointing but Smithsonian's online magazine is very fluffy and low quality internet journalism rather than something serious. It's clear they're hiring young writers for cheap who do little research and just rehash easily obtainable information. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

add Herbert Kersten as commissioning client

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everyone ☺
apparently, it is a reasonable assumption that the real identity behind the person who commissioned the Georgia Guidestones is someone named Herbert Kirsten from Fort Dodge, Iowa, who was either a medical doctor or held a PhD. This is referenced here (13:50 to 15:20) and here. Due to the title and the fact the stones were only erected in 1980, it might be possible to find public records of this person. I don't have the time nor interest to fact-check this in any depth, and won't argue the point at length, but I do think it could warrant a mention in the article; of course only after someone looked into it and with wording appropriate to the level of proof available. Thanks you, kind regards
In case I misspelled the name, please do feel free to change this section's heading.
85.212.148.204 (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Dark Clouds Over Elberton: The True Story Of The Georgia Guidestones : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib_OD5Luk0A

Last 30 minutes or so gives some evidence for the connection and the backgrounds of the text.

87.214.188.202 (talk) 87.214.188.202 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, a user review on Amazon is not a good source. John Oliver basically recites the 2015 documentary, so it's best to look at the 2015 documentary itself. The studio, however, does not inspire confidence. It seems a sort of self-published material being made without outside scrutiny, or fact-checking. A cursory look on their website is even more frightening.

They base the narrative of Nazi hatred of Jews on Germany National Vice (see Gay Nazis myth). One of the movie descriptions basically spreads medical misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines (including vaccine shedding claims wrt to COVID-19 vaccines). And, just to beat it all, the stolen 2020 election. Too much of that, this source should be straightaway deprecated.

If the claims are covered somewhere in local press in Iowa or Georgia, I may consider it. Otherwise, the things that merit mentioning is probably a gubernatorial candidate lobbying for the Guidestones' removal in their (bizarre) campaign and a mention at the John Oliver's show, but without the "real name" claim, particularly since the documentary says it only reached a person who knew some Herbert Kirsten who might have commissioned the "Stonehenge". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki could very well be this Fort Dodge doctor given his interests.[5] - but we don't have evidence to state this. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the documentary was produced by a company that has a clear bias here, if you do a bit of looking into them. I wouldn't trust a single thing that video said to be factual. Fbifriday (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

His identity has been confirmed and expanded upon by a source unsympathetic to the tactics used to gain his identity as well as the general philosophy and other claims of the video. See here. Auctoris (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This additional unsympathetic source does strongly offer reason to restore the section on Herbert Kirsten being the alleged author. However, the section shouldn't be restored in its entirety as the allegations of racism seem extremely biased and speculative. Leave that allegation of racism out for sure, unless more reputable sources are discovered. Dhalsim2 (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources making this connection. It may be true or not. Everything comes down to sources. Self-published podcasts are not on the same level as the Associated Press or NBC. RS are likely aware of this, but as it hasn't been definitively proven it has not been included. We should be relying upon the highest quality of journalism to build this page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

“Bombing”

It wasn’t bombed. Jesus struck it down 2600:6C40:2D7F:8BAD:D82B:2113:63BB:E0D0 (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Please cite your source. Dumuzid (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Why is Wikipedia so politically slanted? Everything you put out now has a liberal slant. Example, with regards to the georga guidestones, you make reference to contributers being loyal Americans with absolutely no evidence to support. How do you know they were loyal Americans? How do you even know they were americans? Show your evidence or update your information to be accurate. You represent yourselves as an on line encyclopedia, you should try to have some integrity. Remember go woke, go broke. 24.236.186.101 (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a direct quote, in quotation marks to show that it is a quotation, from the cited source. - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

CN tags removed

I've removed a bunch of inappropriately added {{CN}} tags, as they were requesting claims for details that were verified by the tablets themselves, thus fulfilling primary source criteria, and with reference to the "undated time capsule" claim, there's a photo right next to the claim showing the detail. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. While I am assuming good faith, I understand people doubt a lot of this page in terms of conspiracy theory stuff, so I do wonder if someone added those to further the disbelief around the truth. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ask User talk:Harizotoh9 who added them. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Then I retract that part, as I am sure it wasn't done with that intent. I do wonder why they were added, still. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It Was Not A Lightning Strike

It was a bomb. 75.186.82.192 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

there isnt any proof of what actually happened 2600:1700:6004:9100:D905:5436:D009:4BF9 (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Herbert Kersten

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RFC was poorly formed, and wandered around quite a bit, so it took quite a bit of reading to figure out exactly what should come of this. After reviewing the entire discussion, and looking at each editor's opinions and arguments, there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that the film itself is not a reliable source, and any mention in the article should be weighted by it's prevalence in secondary sources. This is a bit of an early close, but it's also a WP:SNOW situation, and each uninvolved editor who has arrived has made the blizzard just that much more intense. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Is the section titled "Herbert Kersten theory" adequately sourced? Should the information about Kersten's possible racism be omitted? - Cal Engime (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As per the preserved discussion above, there is are serious concerns regarding the veracity of the documentary, even if the John Oliver team shared it. The documentary was produced by a company called Adullam Films. The production company has also been involved in such things as Holocaust Denial, participating in spreading disinformation of the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as participating in 2020 election fraud claims (as well as claiming that the COVID-19 vaccine could be the Mark of the Beast). Due to all of this, I assert that Adullam Films is a questionable source due to lack of editorial oversight, pushing views that are labeled as extremist, and relying on rumors. Any reference to the documentary, even though presented by John Oliver, should be excluded, to prevent publicly stating that someone has white supremacists ties, which is potentially libelous. This is not a matter of a non-neutral view, due to Adullam's overall patent disinformation, I firmly believe we can not accept the documentary as fact. Fbifriday (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

These are not rational reasons for questioning the truth of the information in this one particular documentary, and have not been persuasive to other published sources that have assessed its conclusion. Wyatt Martin was reported by The New York Times to know who Christian was. Martin showed the documentarians mail which he said was from Christian and which had a return address, all of which was on camera and published in the documentary. Kersten's obituary and other verifiable sources prove that address to have been Kersten's address. It does not take faith in Adullam films to take this as establishing a reasonable link between Kersten and the guidestones, unless the argument being made is that the entire interview with Martin may have been completely staged, either with Martin or with a lookalike actor. There is no legal risk involved in mentioning the sympathy Kersten expressed with David Duke in published writings, or Doan's report that Kersten was "racist to his fingertips" and claimed to be a friend of William Shockley, because accusations of racism are not legally actionable. - Cal Engime (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so let's ignore the libel claim, and simply concentrate on Adullam as a questionable source. The points I stated, the lack of editorial oversight, the pushing of views labeled as extremist, the relying on rumors, I believe are supported by my links. The guideline states "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead,". The claim that he was the one who made the Guidestones is contentious, and the source is questionable (unless you've got another source that can link the two), in my opinion, and thus, per the guideline, shouldn't be included. Because, yes, if we are being honest here, a production company with no editorial oversight or that has an obvious interest in pushing a narrative could have absolutely faked or selectively edited the content. The religious views of these stones were that they were Satanic, how pleased would a Christian media organization been to have linked them to a white supremacist? But this is what the RFC is for, so I've said my case and will let other editors offer. Fbifriday (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The information derived from the documentary is not a matter of rumours, but of facts within the filmmakers' personal knowledge. They know what they saw at Mr Martin's home and can show it to us. That they may have been pleased to link the guidestones to a racist does not mean they are necessarily lying about it, or that their evidence should be ignored, and to seriously suggest for these reasons alone that the interview with Martin was faked is pure conspiracy-theorist thinking. They have no motive for picking out this random physician from Fort Dodge to make out to be the originator of the Georgia Guidestones, and they could just as well have faked evidence linking the guidestones to more prominent figures who have been speculated to be involved with them, such as Robert C. Cook or Ted Turner. - Cal Engime (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• My argument is not about whether or not the documentary is correct, it's whether or not the source of that documentary is questionable. Questionable sources, per the guidance, are generally not to be used for citing contentious claims about third parties. That is it. If the consensus here is that the source of the documentary is questionable, and I don't believe there is much argument that the company is indeed questionable, them it shouldn't be added. Fbifriday (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The statements in the section as it stands are not contentious. - Cal Engime (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• acts within the filmmakers' personal knowledge

When it has already been established that the filmmakers routinely produce false information in their documentaries, I'd say it's a good idea to take their assertions of "personal knowledge" with a truckload of salt. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Only a fool would trust Adullam Films, so the claim is completely unsourced.

If the only source for a claim is a known liar, you don't have to disprove it, you can just ignore it.

The claim should be removed from the article. The only notable thing about the claim is that a television presenter seems to have repeated it without verifying it.

ApLundell (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Why does it matter if the documentary is accurate/factual or not? This page already lists multiple interpretations/conspiracy theories, including the idea the Guidestones were satanic. No one is saying those accusations are accurate/factual; they are listed for being genuine ideas people have. (After all, Wikipedia has entire pages dedicated to well-known conspiracy theories e.g. John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories) I propose a compromise: Move the Herbert Hersten theory section to the conspiracy theory section. Excluding the Herbert Hersten theory altogether will confuse people that come to this page after seeing the John Oliver segment, which has brought the Kerten theory into the mainstream. The section just needs to stress that the Kerten theory is just another conspiracy theory and should not be taken as the absolute truth. LegoK9 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  There are multiple reliable sources that talk about the conspiracies around it being satanic. There is not a single reliable source, other than John Oliver sharing a questionable source, that links that name to this, at all. Ultimately, we aren't here to give John Oliver viewers more info, nor do we allow content from questionable sources, even if they are about conspiracy theories. This would be like sharing an Infowars video as citation on an article about Sandy Hook conspiracies.

  If we can find a news article that establishes that link on their own, then we should include it. Also, I'd recommend a quick readthrough of WP:OTHERCONTENT, because we don't make or keep content just because other content exists. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  I do not see any grounds for identifying the Kersten theory as a "conspiracy theory," which reliable sources do not do. It has a reasonable factual basis (which no one is disputing), and does not allege anything incredible or sinister, but identifies the sponsors as exactly who they said they were: a small group of Americans who were concerned about overpopulation. I would not object to moving these two paragraphs under the "Interpretations" section above the conspiracy theories, though. - Cal Engime (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Y'all are missing the plot here. The documentary is from a questionable source. The question isn't "Is it sourced properly" its "Is the source a reliable one"? No one has challenged my assertion that Adullam films is not a reliable source, the discussion has been about where to place it in the article; My assertion, the one that is up in this RFC, is "Is Adullam films a reliable source, or are they a questionable source". If they are a questionable source, as no one seems to disagree with, we include nothing from the documentary in the article, including the name, and the entire connection. And if they are a questionable source, are there any RELIABLE sources that definitely link him to the guidestones, without using anything from the video as backing, that would be sufficient to leave the information in. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  First, I do not think a film studio is the kind of entity that the content guidelines envision as bearing editorial responsibility so that if a studio has produced several documentaries on disparate subjects, all of its productions must stand together as a single source. Second, while it would be nice if several people would publish academic monographs about the Georgia Guidestones through prestigious university presses and discuss the evidence about Kersten, reliability is relative and not something to be assessed by pedantic exegesis of the content guidelines in a vacuum from the nature of the sources available for the article, and from the content of the statements in question, and from whether or not they are really true; statements which are uncontroversially true do not need a reliable source at all. It might help to elevate the level of this discussion if someone would step up and say, "I think the statements in the section are false. Even having seen the cited portions of the documentary with my own eyes, I still think what the article says is false for the following rationally cogent reasons, which are so convincing that the third-party sources which take the documentary and the evidence it offers seriously should be despised." Third, there is no reason for excluding sources which use anything from the video. Unreliability is not contagious. Other reliable sources are entitled to critically assess the documentary and tell us that it is trustworthy. Such sources overrule claims that the studio is a questionable source, because the content guidelines say that a questionable source is one that has a poor reputation. We have seen no evidence that the studio has a poor reputation. A few editors have examined its oeuvre for themselves and decided that it deserves a poor reputation. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have precisely zero opinion on whether the documentary is true or false: I have not watched it, not any part of it, nor do I intend to. It ultimately, as I have said multiple times, irrelevant if the documentary is correct or incorrect, the issue is that the source is questionable. And once again, no assertion that Adullam is reliable, just that it doesn't matter if they are. I resent the assertment that this is my personal opinion. If anything, I have been wikilawyering HARD, using policy arguments and arguments about the unreliability of the source. I also have no vested interest in what this page says, so implying that I would allow my own personal opinion to influence this argument is not assuming good faith, and thus, this will be my last response.

  However, there is a substantive policy argument to be made here for the sake of the RFC, and that is that unreliability is abolutely contageous. I say again, is absolutely contageous. There is precedent on Wikipedia for excluding questionable sources wholesale, even if and when they are right, as has been done with sources such as infowars, the above mentioned Daily Mail, and others. And yes, the discussion IS how it happens. Editors examine the source for ourselves, and then generate consensus about whether or not it is a reliable source. That is what this RFC is. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Then according to you, an article in the Washington Post would be unreliable if it credited the Daily Mail with breaking the story? - Cal Engime (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  That is not what I said, that is not my argument, that is a clear misrepresentation of my argument. EVERYTHING that links that name to the stones comes from that documentary. That documentary comes from a source I am asserting is questionable, and thus, should be excluded. Without the documentary, there is no link to the stones, and thus, the information should be removed. That is my argument. My argument for the RFC was a policy argument for whoever comes along and closes this discussion. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Right, your principle is that a reliable source which draws information from an unreliable source is poisoned by it and can't be cited because of where it ultimately got its information from, therefore Last Week Tonight can't be cited because Oliver explains the documentary's main evidence and tentatively accepts its conclusion. Doesn't this imply the documentary's discoveries could never be included in the article no matter how much reliable coverage and acceptance they received? How is the case of the Washington Post citing the Daily Mail different? - Cal Engime (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am no longer defending this to you. I don't care if John Oliver decided to share a poorly verified video, it's not my fault Wikipedia apparently has higher editorial standards. I have made my argument, and will simply be using this post to provide more evidence of unreliability.

  This is the director of that film writing a blog where he openly advoacates for listening to conspiracy theories

  This is their "documentary" about conspiracies regarding the eye on US money

  This is their "documentary" about the New World Order and the coming end of days

  This is their TEN HOUR "documentary" about how satanism has invaded the music industry

  A completely different, 4 hour long "documentary" about satanism in the music industry FrederalBacon (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  None of that interests me at all. How would you distinguish the case of the Washington Post citing the Daily Mail? - Cal Engime (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  We aren't going to agree, I have absolutely no requirement to answer your question as all you are doing is asking questions instead of debating whether or not the source is valid, and I am walking away. I sincerely hope you have a good evening. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are proposing something new by basing your position on an idea that otherwise reliable sources cannot be cited if they accept information from a reliable source. You certainly are not bound to answer any questions, and neither do I think there is any need; that you are neither willing to accept the consequence that a Washington Post article would not be a reliable source about a story broken by the Daily Mail ("that is not what I said"), nor able to explain why that case would be meaningfully different, says everything. A principle of not only generally excluding certain low-quality sources, but also excluding high-quality sources which critically analyse them to the extent that they fail to reject and criticise all of their statements whatsoever, would be a radical departure from the principle of a Neutral Point of View. Moreover, I continue to think you are fundamentally mistaken to treat the question with indifference to whether or not this information is true, solely because it has been published by people who have also produced 14 hours of material on the fanciful notion of Satanism in the music industry. Why it is worthwhile for you to search the studio's web site reading about everything they have ever produced, but not to watch ten to fifteen minutes out of a documentary available on YouTube to assess its relevance, is perhaps a question for you to ask yourself. I wish you a good evening as well. - Cal Engime (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  None of that interests me at all.

  Then that suggests to me you're not here to meaningfully contribute to the article, but rather to push a specific narrative. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Do these other documentaries interest you? How many of them do you plan to watch? - Cal Engime (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have no intention of watching any of them, but they interest me as they are relevant to the topic we are discussing : Whether or not this studio/director/producer is a valid source who reports on reality, or a bunch of fantasists who make stuff up.

  Because of the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, that's a more important question than watching the one documentary in isolation and seeing if it can convince us. ApLundell (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• If it helps, the film's director is also a highly unreliable source. ApLundell (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not think we should accept the principle that having produced several other works which would be unreliable sources will render him universally "unreliable," even merely as the publisher of a video, so as to excuse us from individually considering whether this source is in fact reliable in this context. Reliable sources are not obliged to be omniscient and infallible sources, only reliable with regard to the particular statements they support. Linus Pauling's writings on vitamin C would not be reliable sources of medical information, but his writings on quantum chemistry would not be unreliable because of that. The content guidelines in no way say that sources with a reputation for error or mendacity are banned; they say their uses should be limited. It may be true that this director's works should be presumptively excluded as sources, but there is nothing in the guidelines to suggest such a presumption should be incapable of exceptions when other sources tell us that this particular information is worthy of our attention. - Cal Engime (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not just "several". It's "every other publicly available work is of questionable reliability(and the director has publicly advocated for listening to conspiracy theories)". Your essential argument is that this one film should be the glaring exception in a long history of content that doesn't meet our reliability standards, simply because the John Oliver shared it. That doesn't pass any sniff test. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the obituary for Dr. Herbert H. Kersten, M.D., of Fort Dodge, Iowa, says: "He was a naturalist who was very involved in environmental and world population issues." Anon a mouse Lee (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with FrederalBacon that (at least superficially) Adullam films is not a reliable source and, therefor, should not be used a citation for statements of fact. Having said that, LegoK9 makes a valid point that we could still cite the movie as a source for its own opinions, specifically the "Herbert Kersten theory", if we demonstrate that theory is reasonably prevalent. I dont think John Oliver sharing the 'Herbert Kersten theory' by itself does that, but it is at least evidence that this theory is prevalent. Bonewah (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• My issue is, the name comes from this unreliable sources research. They claim to have used campaign finance records and patent applications to link the name to the guidestones. How do we sever the fact that the name is a result of supposed research from an unreliable source? FrederalBacon (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Notions of reliable sources are subordinate to the core policy of verifiability, and there is no issue with that because we can read Patent 4,279,225 ourselves and verify Kersten's address by other published sources such as the 1979 Annual Report of the Northern Nut Growers Association, his fairly frequent letters to the Des Moines Register which were printed with his address, and his obituary which states that he still lived there when he died. Some people will be interested that the issue of January 25, 1981 printed a letter in which he wrote, "America should now begin to direct the attention of the world to solving the fundamental problem which threatens to engulf all humanity in social and economic catastrophe. I refer to the uncontrolled reproduction of our species, which has already caused human numbers to far exceed the level which our planet can support in decency. Even the United States is overpopulated in terms of a permanent balance with our resources." - Cal Engime (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

And every single thing you just said is your own research ("We can read the patent ourselves."). Also, the link to a quote that you personally think people would be interested to read, about the potentially unrelated guys opinion on overpopulation, does make it appear this this is civil POV pushing by giving undue weight to fringe theories. This is an article about a monument, and your arguments in the talk are pushing its link overpopulation, which is one of the conspiracy theories regarding the tablets. That, and your statement above that the source being unreliable not interesting you, causes me to personally give your arguments little weight. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Additionally, reliable sources are inseparable from verifiability. The first line of verifiability states "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." By the way, the second line is "Wikipedia does not publish original research." which is what Cal Engime seems to be advocating. Bonewah (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Then we can shut down Wikipedia, because no article would be written without the kind of "original research" that consists of finding information in books and newspapers. These are perfectly sufficient sources to say that Kersten lived at 730 Wraywood Drive and the statement is not contentious in any way. Calling it a "conspiracy theory" that the monument had a link to overpopulation is, frankly, ludicrous. The plain text of the monument explicitly warned against overpopulation, which was a mainstream environmentalist concern in the 1970s. - Cal Engime (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

By your interpretation, that is what it is. However, there is a reliable source, a contemporary newspaper article, that states that the people who built it, built it to survive a coming disaster, and it was meant as "guides" for the humans that survived. So, according to contemporary sources, it has absolutely nothing to do with overpopulation. The fact that a discussion about the reliability of a source has now come to a discussion about whether or not the link to overpopulation was a conspiracy theory or not has shown this is clearly a POV push. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Guides which prominently included a warning against overpopulation, namely, "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." What other interpretation of that is there supposed to be? It's like saying it's a conspiracy theory that Marvin Gaye's lyrics "what about this overcrowded land, how much more abuse from man can she stand?" are about overpopulation and that you couldn't say so even with the support of multiple reliable sources, because they would ipso facto be conspiracy theorist sources. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• It probably isn't hard to find published interpretations of Marvin Gaye's work, which could be used on Wikipedia, but the musings of what some editor heard through the grapevine is best left out. Anon a mouse Lee (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment So, given the way this discussion is going, I would ask the next uninterested editor who comes in for the RFC to evaluate the topic as a whole, and decide whether or not a consensus has been formed, based off of the arguments in this RFC.

My final argument is that: The name comes from the documentary. The documentary is not a reliable source. As such, anything related to the name shouldn't be forth as fact. The way the paragraph is written, using that film as a reference, in Wikivoice, is clearly written to imply the accuracy of that information, not as the fringe theory the source clearly indicates. If we were to include the information from the film at all, it should be given its due weight and placed in the proper place. Potentially change the "conspiracy theories" section to "Fringe Theories" and cover it there, if enough reliable sources were able to show it was notable enough to merit inclusion.

As for the John Oliver thing: I'll say again, it is not our fault that Wikipedia apparently has better fact checking and editorial standards than a cable TV show. John Oliver mentioning it does not make the source suddenly valid, but it would go a ways toward covering it as a fringe theory, however, John Oliver didn't cover it as a fringe theory, he covered it as fact. So I would argue that including the John Oliver clip as a reference wouldn't actually be a valid source for it being the fringe theory it is.

Because of all of this, I argue for the reference to be completely removed from the page, until such a time as a source can be provided that 1. Links the name to the Guidestones, outside of the documentary, without using any part of the documentary as a starting point. or 2. Shows the theory has enough notability to be covered in fringe theories.

I also remind all involved that this is an article about a monument, and we have had to have an RFC regarding how prominently to include a theory linking it to white supremacy, and then the whole argument about the source. I again ask to think about how much weight we are giving this entire argument, and also, consider the fact that the editor who called for the RFC is pretty clearly involved in a POV push, not caring whether or not the source is valid, but demanding its inclusion based off of their own research and beliefs regarding the monument. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I continue to regard the above proposal to disqualify Last Week Tonight as a reliable source on the basis of its content, because an editor considers Oliver to have been persuaded by a fringe theory, as a flat-out rejection of NPOV. Reliable sources are not bound to ignore questionable sources any more than they are bound not to do original research. The disparaging language used by Oliver of the documentary indicates that he and his research staff took the nature of the source into account, and still judged its hypothesis credible. Due weight means taking that judgement into account, not overruling it with the unsourced opinions of editors on what deserves be marginalised as a conspiracy theory. There are zero sources contending that this "fringe theory" is ill-supported or untrue, and while I would think unsourced arguments to that effect could be taken into account in deciding whether to omit the information, neither does any editor make such arguments.

No editor vouches that they believe the cited material really is unreliable in context, rather, the argument is that content guidelines can be interpreted to mean they are supposed to think it is unreliable, because it is published by a studio which has produced other, unrelated documentaries which they have not watched and will not watch, but judge unreliable based on their subject matter. Whether the producers of the documentary regularly rashly give heed to rumours or false theories about history has no bearing on the reliability of facts within their personal knowledge contained in the documentary. It is necessary to hypothesise that the documentary is an elaborate hoax. There is no evidence that the producers have a history of willful deception or the resources to stage such a hoax, and such a possibility must be further discounted in light of the lack of any known disavowal or rebuttal of the documentary by Wyatt Martin, who lived for six years after its release, and the existence of completely independent evidence in published sources that corroborates its thesis, such as the verbal parallel to the Guidestones in Kersten's writing of a "permanent balance with our resources." In any case, the documentary has received coverage in mainstream media, the article merely relates what is in the documentary, and as the guidelines say, questionable sources are reliable sources about themselves. In any case, there is certainly no basis in Wikipedia policy for trying to ban any future incorporation of information springing from the documentary, no matter how widely accepted and well-sourced it may become, on the theory that information in Wikipedia must be based upon an unbroken isnad of reliable sources. We would have to exclude learned works on ancient history if they derived information from Livy, who is clearly unreliable judging by his fabulous tale of a talking ox.

I wish there had been more discussion of the issue of the mention of Kersten's racism, since it appears it continues to be an object of concern and a motive of the argument that the documentary is unreliable. It is not clear what the reason is to be concerned that Kersten's involvement might link the monument to white supremacism. Some concern was expressed about this exposing Wikipedia to possible litigation, but this legal theory seems to have been abandoned. Many articles say that particular people and things are white supremacist, and there is no a priori reason to exclude the information that some people think the author of the inscriptions was a man who may have been friends with a white supremacist if that is what the sources tell us. - Cal Engime (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

As an editor so succinctly put it earlier: If the only source for a claim is a known liar, you don't have to disprove it, you can just ignore it.FrederalBacon (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A reliable source is defined in Wikipedia as "..published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." so if the only other things Adullam films has published have been shown to be unreliable, then obviously Adullam films does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you disagree, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Just be sure to leave a note here so that interested parties can make their case there. Bonewah (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out something, that is the director's own words, when it comes to conspiracy theories.

"As we show through our research, this war against God and Christ is not merely symbolic; it is a very literal and direct attack against Jesus Himself. The secret societies that are so often shown to be ruling the world behind the scenes, and who have been laboring to bring mankind into a global empire, demonstrate through their repeated writings, declarations, and actions that their main enemy is Jesus and the gospel message."

So we are trusting a guy who already has publicly stated he believes in new world order conspiracy theories, and sees them himself (through his research, the same type of research he would have done in, say, a documentary), to make an objective statement about a monument that has a conspiracy around it about it that it's a part of the "New World Order" (There is a cite on the page that links to a Mark Dice, another known conspiracy theorist, saying as such).

If we are gonna mention this at all, it should be clearly labeled as a conspiracy in the appropriate section, if notable. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

John Oliver is very smart but he is a comedian, and even he might be surprised if Wikipedia considered him a reliable source. Anon a mouse Lee (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Oliver's show features both comedy and journalism, as indicated by the citation for its most recent Peabody Award among other sources, and does substantial original reporting which is the basis of some statements in other articles, such as Miss America. What he reported about Kersten was not a joke. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What he reported about Kersten was a video from a known conspiracy theorist, presented as fact. That's why we are where we are now: John Oliver doesn't share that "documentary" as "someone figured out the stones", we wouldn't even be having a conversation about this. None of us would have heard about the guy, the documentary, the company, the director, any of it, because, once again, this is not a mainstream theory, or even one that mainstream outlets have covered. It's a fringe theory. I have even spent significant time scouring the web trying to see if I could find anything to prove me wrong. A quick google search of "Herbert Kersten Georgia Guidestones" made it very clear I wasn't going to find anything. That Google search only links to self published sources, blogs, forums, twitter, etc. No one, not a single reliable source, despite the John Oliver team putting out there for people to be aware of, has taken the time to go into that theory, or even retell it, at all. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

A fringe theory is one which "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views" concerning the Guidestones, and Oliver does not do so. The sources may indicate that the Kersten theory remains little known to other journalists, but that older or less thoroughly researched sources show no idea who commissioned the Guidestones hardly demonstrates that Oliver is outside the mainstream of journalistic discourse on the Guidestones, or that there is a "prevailing view" of their origin which Oliver rejects. The Kersten theory should rather be assessed at least as what the content guidelines call a significant-minority view. That may warrant reserve about saying Kersten was Christian as an established fact even though the few sources regard it as such, but it is in no way comparable to what the content guidelines envision as "fringe theories," such as astrology, flat Earth, and Moon landing denial, where reliable sources indicate that mainstream scholarly discourse regards the fringe view as discredited by overwhelming evidence. - Cal Engime (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say that prevailing mainstream view is a positive statement that there is no known evidence of who commissioned the stones.

Oliver quoted an unreliable source espousing an opposing fringe viewpoint.

We should treat the Kersten theory claim similar to how wikipedia handles fringe sources who claim to have solved other long-standing mysteries. Either it should be ignored completely, or it should be clearly described as an unevidenced fringe theory that briefly caught the attention of mainstream media. ApLundell (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, as you added the material, you are the one who has to prove verifiability. You added the material citing the film directly. That policy also says "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." You have not proven the film as a reliable source. As stated above, by many editors, the film is not a reliable source. That's what this conversation is about. The discussion about John Oliver is, ultimately, irrelevant, to you citing the film directly. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless you think the sentences need to be recast in the form "the film included a purported interview with a man the film identified as Kurt Wilke, who said...", there is no dispute that the film is a reliable source about what the film contains. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So your assertion is that because it's a factual description summary of the plot of the video, that is what counts as verifiability? FrederalBacon (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly what the guidelines on questionable sources say: "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". - Cal Engime (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this an article about the film? Is this an article about Adullam films? I'm confused, how are you using it as a source for itself? FrederalBacon (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Just figured I'd show you this This link, which you tried to add as a source (looks like a self published source, so probably not a reliable source), refers to Adullam as such

"In 2015, Adullam Films released Dark Clouds Over Elberton, a documentary about the Guidestones. Adullam Films is a Christian ministry that specializes in slowly-paced conspiracy-themed educational fare. Its other releases include The Kinsey Syndrome (Alfred Kinsey single-handedly created the LGBTQIA community to promote satanic pedophilia, apparently) and Eye of the Phoenix, an exposé on all the scary Masonic symbolism on the back of the U.S. dollar bill."

Didn't know if you read that part before you posted it, but he is CLEARLY making fun of them for their conspiracy theories. That is not the lead paragraph for a story that person believes. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

And then he says that in this documentary, "Pinto makes a strong case," and details the evidence he offers in a way that makes clear he takes it seriously. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

And it's still not a reliable source regardless. So how are you using the film as a source for itself? FrederalBacon (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, that patent is clearly your own research, considering the fact that you advocated to us to "read the patent for ourselves" and linked it above. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

A public record on a government web site is a reliable source for Kersten's address. I only added it because you were concerned about sourcing of that independently of the documentary. I cannot sympathise with your extreme position that these sources are not usable even if everything they say is objectively true. The content guidelines say that proper sourcing is always dependent on context and "common sense," and it is wikilawyering in the worst sense to search the guidelines for pretexts to remove true and verifiable information on the basis of a hypothetical concern that the source might have been wrong, even where reliable sources prove it is correct. While it would be original research if some editor identified Christian as Kersten by a chain of logical deductions based on information in government archives alone, it is not original research to note such information that has already been pointed out in a published documentary whose synthesis is neutrally or favourably reported by other reliable sources.

At least on the principle that the documentary is a primary source about itself, citing the documentary itself for straightforward descriptive statements about it is perfectly appropriate to add context to the information provided by Newsweek and Last Week Tonight that Pinto identified Christian as Kersten by looking at Wyatt Martin's mail. If you think it is necessary to caution readers that the originator of this theory is a conspiracy theorist, it may be possible to add some brief information about Pinto's background if it can be reliably sourced. But there is simply no basis in the sources for identifying the Kersten theory itself as a "fringe view" or "conspiracy theory," even if there really is a mainstream view that "even after 2015, nobody knows who Robert Christian really was." Reliable sources present it as a significant alternative view to "nobody knows." - Cal Engime (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

To describe Kersten theory as anything other than a fringe theory from a person who specializes in fringe theories would be an outright mistruth.

There is no "Well at least my theory gives an answer" exception in the WP:Fringe guidelines. Nor should there be.

It would be a major a disservice to readers to describe the theory without first describing how extremely unreliable and given to outright fabrication the only source is. That is the only context that fringe theories should even be mentioned in articles not specifically about fringe theories. ApLundell (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn't even unusual. Long-standing mysteries are often "solved" by fringe sources. And those "solutions" often have a brief moment of popularity, where they're repeated, uncritically, without any fact-checking or review, by a handful of mainstream press sources.

None of that stops it from being a fringe theory. That's pretty much the normal life-cycle of a fringe theory. ApLundell (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

No evidence has been adduced from reliable or unreliable sources that Pinto is "given to outright fabrication", but if that can be sourced, it could be mentioned. Anyway, this call surely needs more behind it than "I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few conspiracy theories in my time." The content guidelines do not indicate that a fringe theory is a matter of partisan association where a fringe theory is something that has been proposed by an adherent of other fringe theories, regardless of how it has been received by the world at large. We don't put Newtonian physics in that category just because Isaac Newton's main research interests were end times prophecy, astrology, and the search for the philosopher's stone. The criterion is a view's relation to mainstream scholarly discourse, which cannot be reduced to a matter of counting sources, because an opinion held by even a small minority can still fall within a range of mainstream opinions. It is true the guidelines allow for the possibility that something can still be a fringe theory despite occasional credulous coverage in supposedly reliable sources, but the best way to establish that would be to produce countervailing evidence from weightier sources. The Kersten theory does not ask us to believe in occult or magical influences like astrology does, nor does it ask us to gratuitously dismiss evidence like JFK's autopsy photos as a forgery.

Rather, judging by objective content, what you are telling us now seems much more like a conspiracy theory. You are asking us to hypothesise either that Pinto had something against Kersten and wanted to blacken his reputation by associating him with the Guidestones, or that he wanted to ruin the reputation of the Guidestones by associating them with someone sinister, and passing over the subjects of previous speculation like Robert Cook or Ted Turner, as well as others he could have freely chosen such as Matthias Koehl, David Myatt, Anton LaVey, or anyone else, he somehow picked out this obscure Iowa physician. Then you ask us to gratuitously suppose that the video of Pinto's visit to Wyatt Martin is an elaborate forgery. Other people who were interviewed in the documentary have to be assumed to be co-conspirators enlisted by Pinto to advance the lie, such as Harris Honsey, who said he knew Kersten's friend Merryman had published Common Sense Renewed and had assumed Merryman had written it. Moreover, we should ignore the reception of the documentary either because journalists have been credulous fools who have missed evidence of fraud that you cannot identify either, or because Pinto must be such a master of deception that he was able to fake evidence that cannot in any way be distinguished from real evidence.

That Kersten believed he had ideas worthy of being carved in stone, sixteen feet high, and got a small number of friends to help him do it is a far simpler proposition which logically coheres with everything else we know about the Guidestones and about the world. There are no sources indicating that it is scorned or rejected by mainstream discourse. You are arguing that we should ignore those sources on the basis of a private theory that the documentary could be all a hoax, a theory I do not find more credible just because you attribute the hoax to Adullam Films and not to the Central Intelligence Agency. Your belief that this is likely to have happened, based on an unevidenced claim that Pinto has made things up before, is your only reason for setting aside the acknowledgement we find in the sources of the Kersten theory as within the range of mainstream opinion. That's not good enough. - Cal Engime (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Everything you said is your own opinion. Pinto's history and own words have shown him to be a conspiracy theorist without a basis in fact, we don't have to have reliable sources calling him such, that's the point of editors deciding what is a valid source: We get to call a spade a spade. You keep mentioning Wikilawyering, so let me lay it out without policy. He's an unreliable source. He has shown himself to be an unreliable source. I'm just wondering how you're divorcing his history of conspiracy theories, both before and after the documentary in question, and going "But this one is real guys!" and thinking that is good enough. It isn't FrederalBacon (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, have you actually read through this post where he advocates listening to conspiracy theories about the "New World Order". He signed it cjp at the end, so it's Pinto who wrote it. I strongly encourage a read through, and then I want to see if you still believe him afterwards. And this isn't even about the religious aspects, it's his overall views. Let me hit a key point here

"How do conspiracy theories fit in with The Great Commission? This is a good question and one to be considered by those who investigate end time events and those who don’t. First let me say that this writer is of the opinion that conspiracy theories have little or no value unless they glorify God, and demonstrate the fulfillment of Bible prophecy."

So he believes that conspiracy theories that glorify God have value, if they're demonstrating fulfilling Bible prophecy.

Also, another passage from that

"But back to the issue: How do conspiracy theories serve the Gospel message? The answer comes when they glorify the only true God, and the testimony of His Son. Sometimes this happens by exposing the wicked deeds of evil men, as it is written: “… have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” (Ephesians 5:11)"

We don't have to find a source calling Chris Pinto a conspiracy theorist: He does it himself, and he seems rather proud of it. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Does he claim the biblical prophets foretold that Herbert Kersten would build the Georgia Guidestones? - Cal Engime (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a facetious question, people do sometimes surprise me with what specific contemporary events they think are foretold in the Apocalypse or other biblical books. But you've quoted him saying conspiracy theories are of little or no value except on certain conditions, and if those conditions do not apply to this subject matter, then the quote means the opposite of what you say it does, because here he disavows conspiracy theories as of little or no value. If Pinto has also alleged Kersten was acting in concert with a global conspiracy which is bringing about the reign of the Antichrist, and not just with a few forward-thinking men he knew in Fort Dodge, that would seem to fall within the general scope of the "conspiracy theories" he talked about in that post, but I think there would be an original research issue if you juxtaposed the fact that he was the first to suggest Kersten's involvement with the fact that he has expressed openness to information from conspiracy theories about something else as a way of arguing that he is probably also propounding a "conspiracy theory" about this, in lieu of sources that say so. In any case, there would seem to be some equivocation, because he is obviously using the term in a broad sense that includes truthful, well-founded information about real conspiracies such as MKUltra or the events leading to the assassination of Grigoris Lambrakis, while you want to read it as if he had said, "paranoid delusions may be of some value if they glorify God and demonstrate the fulfillment of Bible prophecy." - Cal Engime (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not "original research" to investigate whether or not a source is reliable, and if not, say that unreliable sources should not be used.

It's simply correct application of policy to investigate sources and not use unreliable sources.

Coming up with tortured almost-logic for why he's totally reliable, but only for this one thing, is not the correct thing to do. Not as far as wikipedia policy is concerned, nor even just life in general, really. ApLundell (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would participate in this discussion by offering rationally intelligible reasons for your opinion, and not vacuous insults, such as that my attempts to find some consensus with you consist of "tortured almost-logic." If this is tortured almost-logic, then explain to me why it is not logic. - Cal Engime (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

We have. Multiple times. We're not sure how else to explain it, because you're still clinging to the idea that this is his one work that is a reliable source, amongst an ocean of conspiracy theory drivel. THIS ONE is the one that should be taken seriously. The evidence suggests that nothing Chris Pinto and Adullam Films produces should be given any weight. That's why. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a sentence or two in the article now. I think that is a fair amount more weight than Adullam films should be given, but, given that it presents the theory, and it is given it's due weight on an article about a monument, and it has, at this point, been reverted to that state, pointing to this RfC as evidence of consensus, can we end this and leave it as is right now? FrederalBacon (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No. Determining consensus does not mean seeing who can bring the most people to shout the loudest. If you also think I have presented you with tortured almost-logic, then articulate what is wrong with it. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Clearly this film does not meet WP:RS and should be not cited at all. By policy we ignore non-reliable sources when writing encyclopedia articles. - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to go with what seems to me to be the clear consensus: though I am open to persuasion, I see no reason to think this film is WP:REPUTABLE per Wikipedia standards. As such, for me, at least, it should not be included in the article. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree, I read as much of this discussion as I could (it got repetitive) and I have to say that the video mentioned here is a very questionable reliable source, to put it mildly. I don't think any weight should be given to anything drawn from that source. - Aoidh (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Documentary, Part 2

Current consensus from above is that the production company that produced that video, ADULLAM FILMS, is of questionable reliability, and thus, references from that video alone are not going to be included, once again, as per consensus above. We are CERTAINLY not going to be asserting any white supremacy links based off of that video. Fbifriday (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

None of the allegations made in the documentary have been confirmed or repeated by reliable sources. They are likely aware of such claims, but given that they haven't been confirmed they have not repeated them. WSBTV for instance published a piece recounting the story of the creation of the stones, and omits any reference to these allegations. Wikipedia should follow their lead. And all the sources used for this article should be high quality journalist sources, such as newspapers, rather than self-published podcasts, documenatries, and other web sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No such consensus has been reached above. A large number of people wish for the information to be included in the article, opposed by a few users apparently resting upon the misunderstanding that Wikipedia policies require that individual sources be "unbiased," or reliable with respect to all assertions that they have ever published. The John Oliver segment and other sources establish the notability of the documentary's contents, and the documentary is a reliable source for what was said in the documentary. - Cal Engime (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a legal concern, a libelous legal concern. I will start a RFC if needed, but I do not believe I need to explain any further why adding information relating a guy to a white supremacist could be libelous based off of that sole connection to the Guidestones. Fbifriday (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Bias is not sole sufficient cause to exclude a source, but the video in question is a self-published source. That is the reason it is unuseable on Wikipedia. Sennalen (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead Photograph

There seems to be a slow-burn edit war over the lead photograph.

For a while, the article has had this photograph.

Now a user is trying to change it to this new photograph.

Neither photograph is fantastic, but I prefer the original photo. It's better lit, and sharper.

Anyone else have an opinion? ApLundell (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The older picture is better for the first image, but added the newer photo in the 'Inscriptions' section. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The photo is being added by the person who took the photo, so of course they would like their photo on the article's infobox. However, given that three editors (myself, Anon a mouse Lee, and ScottishFinnishRadish) have reverted the addition of the shadowy image, I do think there is an implicit consensus against its addition as the primary image, but just to make it clear on the talk page as well, I thought I should comment on it. The justification for edit-warring to replace the better image with the newer one is that "The photo is among the last photos ever taken of the monument." While yes, the shadowy image is newer by 2 years, but newer does not mean better, and there is no requirement that the newest image be used, especially on an unchanging (you know, until the explosion) monument. The image currently used in the infobox is clear on details and not hidden in shadows, and is the better image. The shadowy photo was taken a couple of months before the explosion, but is not a historically significant photograph, it's just one of countless images of the monument, and the date it was taken is not close enough to the monument's destruction to give it any significance in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The 2020 photo gives the clearest view of the text, while a 2014 appears to be the nicest for showing the surroundings. The one taken in shadow adds nothing. It's a shame the person who took it didn't walk around to the sunlit side. Anon a mouse Lee (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The 2014 photo is fine, but I do think the 2020 photo is better for the infobox, as it's close up and shows details of the monument, which is the subject of the article. - Aoidh (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)